Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(15)
Because the two methods are based on different separation mechanisms, insight into the resin's molecular architecture is gained from two entirely different, yet complementary perspectives.
Such cynicism, however, now looks unfair, because the two methods have since converged, with both coming to predict a relatively close race, in which – in the final straight – remain enjoys a slight advantage.
We preferred to rely on Eq. (4), because the two methods have been shown to be empirically equivalent in terms of accuracy, and because Dang and Lanjouw (2013) indicate that the point-estimate methodology is most accurate when short time periods are analyzed.
The answer to this question is necessary because the two methods have different credibility.
This is not surprising because the two methods use different principles.
Because the two methods for avidity calculation described above were significantly influenced by the chosen working dilutions, we developed a new calculation method of antibody avidity.
Similar(45)
This was considered appropriate and necessary for a better comparison of the two methods, because in our understanding of the extent of specular highlights, any image gradient increase due to the contours of the specular highlights is to be included during labelling, while the definition in [26] was motivated by a purely visual assessment.
This is promising because it suggests that the two methods provide complementary information to each other.
Because the results from the two methods were essentially the same, we have reported the results from the Poisson models run with the rescaled standard errors.
Direct comparison of NEXAFS and NMR results is difficult because of fundamental differences between the two methods.
For the robotic vision application, we find the same total execution time with the two methods because of the existence of a critical path in the DFG which always sets the overall execution time.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com